20
Jul

No Excuse Not to Drill Here: It Won’t Take Ten Years to Get the Oil

Posted by: Mike's America @ 8:48 pm in Uncategorized

Visited 3537 times, 5 so far today

And the dirty little secret why Democrats want gas prices to go higher still!

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
-Abraham Lincoln

By now, readers will be very familiar with the Democrats “big lie” strategy. It’s one they have used time and again. Whether it’s global warming, or the surge in Iraq has failed or lately, that even if we drill for more oil today it won’t be available for at least ten years. The big lie works. Lie loud enough and often enough and get your friends in the “news” media to repeat it and many people will accept it as fact.

But as Lincoln said, you can’t fool all the people all the time. Some you can, and we will continue to call them Democrats. So, this news about how quickly we could begin lowering the price of oil by increasing the supply will come as a shock to them. Be kind, before you pass this along to any lib friends, make sure to hand them a hanky to cry in.

Earlier this month President Bush removed the Executive ban on offshore oil drilling and urged the Congress to follow suit. Congress will have to act one way or the other as the congressional moratorium on offshore drilling expires on September 30. Harry Pelosi and Nancy Reid (or is it the other way around?) have dug in their heels and refused to allow new drilling to take place offshore, or anywhere else for that matter.

Chief among their objections was that it would take “ten years” to get that oil to market. Like so much else in their repertoire, that statement too is untrue:

Does It Have To Take A Decade To Bring New Crude To Market?
BY MONICA SHOWALTER
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
7/18/2008

…Polls show most Americans favoring opening federal lands and offshore areas to energy production. As it stands, 97% of our offshore areas and 94% of our federal lands are off limits.

President Bush raised the likelihood that that could change with his lifting of the federal moratorium on offshore drilling.

But he’s been opposed by Congress, which argues it will simply take too long — as much as 10 years or more — for the new oil to come to market to do any good.

That doesn’t appear to be true.

To begin with, industry analysts note, much of the drilling delay is self-inflicted — a result of excessively stringent environmental and land-use regulations.

Scrap those, or modify them, and new oil can be produced in far less than 10 years.

Producing oil from new sources has three stages, which can take years, notes Marilyn Crockett, executive director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association in Anchorage. First, comes an environmental impact report, then bidding on leases and, finally, drilling.

Yet, in some areas, the regulatory processes is largely done, so oil can come to market far sooner than 10 years — if Congress lets it.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told IBD oil from the Chukchi Sea, believed to hold 15 billion barrels of oil, could flow much sooner than 10 years with new legislation.

“Those areas Congress can help us with right now,” she said.

Congress’ delays have become an issue in this year’s campaigns.

“Those are problems that can be solved with legislation,” said Craig Williams, a Republican congressional candidate from Pennsylvania, who traveled to the North Slope of Alaska last week and spoke to IBD by phone. He said streamlining the environmental impact process and tightening the four- to six-year schedule for bidding would make a big difference.

Bureaucracy’s not the only problem.

“The chilling effect is the lawsuits at every single step of the way,” said Crockett. “There is tremendous legal attention on oil and gas development participation in new areas. . . . I have been in this industry 38 years and know what happens.”

According to the Institute for Energy Research, a private think tank, citing Bureau of Land Management data, protests, appeals and lawsuits over oil development averaged 1,180 per year between 2001 and 2007, a 706% increase over 1997-2000. The IER notes, for instance, that 100% of New Mexico’s 78 oil leases were protested by environmental and neighborhood groups.

The group also noted that a critical pipeline from the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska has been held up by lawsuits — even as Congress blames oil companies for not producing oil from its leases there.

“They’re stuck in position because they can’t transport the oil 200 or 300 miles away,” said Williams

In areas where the bureaucratic hurdles are over and lawsuits are absent, oil has been drilled and brought to the market in as little as one or two years. Louisiana’s offshore areas are an example.
To be sure, oil won’t be flowing tomorrow even if all drilling restrictions were lifted.

California’s 10 billion barrels in offshore oil could be brought to market in as little as a year “if the moratorium were lifted,” according to a recent Sanford C. Bernstein report said, citing that the oil is under shallow water and drilling platforms already exist.

That doesn’t mean it won’t impact prices.

Oil prices are influenced by futures markets — where people buy and sell future supplies of oil. Futures prices are now higher than spot prices, a signal that supply is tight.

If we have the will to drill, we can break the negative market psychology and send oil tumbling back below $100 a barrel.

Just a little talk from President Bush last week about pushing for more oil supplies helped push oil prices down more than 10% to below $130 a barrel in just five days, even though a drilling ban remains in place.

The widely respected Cambridge Energy Research Associates estimates speculative bidding accounts for about 20% of the price of oil. The promise of more supply would help cut prices.

Breaking the continuity of thinking about supply also affects existing oil producers.

A big one, like Saudi Arabia which has spare capacity, will have more incentive to pump if it thinks it will lose markets. That’s what drilling in the U.S. would do — threaten Saudi Arabia’s and OPEC’s market dominance, and force them to pump more.

All that stands in the way is a Congress that, ironically, calls a 10-year production window too long, even as it’s bankrolled by the very environmental special interests responsible the delays.

Ah yes, those wonderful environmental groups which raise nearly $7 billion dollars a year by scaring the American people are the ones holding American energy independence hostage with an army of lawyers and bucketfuls of cash to bribe Democrats!

And why are they doing it? Oil exploration, transportation and use in this country has become remarkably safe. Especially when compared to the rest of the world.

Nature Pollutes MORE than Oil Companies and Users

In a largely unheralded report (you’ll know why it was unheralded in a second) by the National Academy of Science titled “Oil in the Sea III” we learn:

Oil in the Sea III
National Academy of Science
2003

New estimates indicate that the overall amount of petroleum released to the marine environment may be lower than earlier thought. This reflects, in part, advances over the last decade in marine transportation and oil and gas production techniques. Spillage from vessels in North American waters from 1990 to 1999 was less than one-third of the spillage during the prior decade, and, despite increased production, reductions in releases during oil and gas exploration and production have been dramatic as well.

The chart at right shows that natural oil seepage from the ocean floor accounts for far greater petroleum contamination than mandmade sources in the United States. And the proportion of U.S. pollution to that of other nations is far less. There is no valid environmental reason NOT to drill for more oil.

A recent report on the oil tanker industry backs up the National Academy of Sciences conclusions by reporting that oil spills from tankers have reached historic lows.

And as we have seen, environmental groups are even willing to overlook their objections to oil drilling in even the most ecologically sensitive areas for the right price.

The Dirty Little Secret: Dems love high has prices

With all of the above in mind, why do Dems use every tactic to continue blocking new American sources of oil? The answer goes beyond mere money and the zealotry of the environmental movement. The answer is that controlling energy means controlling the economy and every facet of life in this country.

Readers will recall that Obama famously let it slip that high gas prices weren’t such a bad thing. He just wished the price rise wouldn’t have been so rapid.

Well, one writer in San Francisco (where else?) writing a column called “Shades of Green” (that should be a hint) wrote this:

SHADES OF GREEN
$8-a-gallon gas
Commentary: Eight reasons higher prices will do us a world of good
By Chris Pummer
Market Watch
May 28, 2008

For one of the nastiest substances on earth, crude oil has an amazing grip on the globe. We all know the stuff’s poison, yet we’re as dependent on it as our air and water supplies — which, of course, is what oil is poisoning.

Americans should be celebrating rather than shuddering over the arrival of $4-a-gallon gasoline. We lived on cheap gas too long, failed to innovate and now face the consequences of competing for a finite resource amid fast-expanding global demand.
A further price rise as in Europe to $8 a gallon — or $200 and more to fill a large SUV’s tank — would be a catalyst for economic, political and social change of profound national and global impact. We could face an economic squeeze, but it would be the pain before the gain.

The author goes on to promise that once oil hits $8 a gallon a host of welcome change will befall us all. It’s a pure socialist and Utopian fantasy and a dangerous one at that.

We have the oil resources in the United States to make us wholly independent from foreign sources. We could exploit those resources and take much of the money that would have been going overseas and use it to develop and implement the eventual oil free future that one day will come. And we can do it without a massive social and economic disruption or harm to the environment.

A blog by the name of “The Other McCain” had a good idea. Adapt Newt Gingrich’s slogan “Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.” to “”Drill Here, Drill Now, Annoy Barbra Streisand.”

Print This Post Print This Post
This entry was posted on Sunday, July 20th, 2008 at 8:48 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

  1. Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut.
  2. Dobson Says Maybe

67 comments so far

 1Reply to this comment  

The author goes on to promise that once oil hits $8 a barrel a host of welcome change will befall us all. It’s a pure socialist and Utopian fantasy and a dangerous one at that.

It should read “$8 a gallon”

July 20th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Leah
 2Reply to this comment  

I think that even if the moratorium was lifted and we could drill offshore, the situation will turn to the noted above: lawsuits from environmental groups blocking all action. This time around, it’ll even break the 1.180 average noted between the years of 2001-2007. Money-hungry lawyers coupled up with environmental agencies too stubborn to listen to facts makes lawsuits like flies to a carcass.

Makes me glad I decided not to go into environmental law.

Cheap gas and failure to innovate are what the higher gas prices would be a remedy for? And what welcome change, exactly? The change of the amount of cash we hold in our wallets?

July 20th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
 3Reply to this comment  

Thanks Bronze. Unlike the libs, I’d rather be optimistic that the price can go down. Though I doubt it will hit $8 a barrel.

July 20th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
kathie
 4Reply to this comment  

It is said that by 2025 that some small percentage of our economy will function on alternative energies. I have heard it said there is no longer any one around who knows how to build nuclear plants it’s been so long since we built one. Not that the Dems would allow the building of one.

Lets look at what the Dems have done in the last 2 years. Our deficit has grown by leaps and bounds. The auto industry, air industry, trucking industry have been run into deficits and their people have swelled the ranks of the unemployed. Everything that is transported costs much more, so not only are we dealing with higher gas prices but food prices as well. Roads that were scheduled to be paved are being put off because oil is involved and is too expensive. Wait until the cold weather sets in on the East coast the winning will be unbearable. You can not take the one commodity off the market that runs America and expect that there is enough money collected in taxes to keep people afloat. Algore says we will all feel some pain in this transition…….not the millionaires! I’m wondering what planet these smart people live on.

July 20th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
 5Reply to this comment  

…. protests, appeals and lawsuits over oil development averaged 1,180 per year between 2001 and 2007, a 706% increase over 1997-2000. The IER notes, for instance, that 100% of New Mexico’s 78 oil leases were protested by environmental and neighborhood groups.

And just how much of a coincidence is it that the 3rd IPCC report that put the confidence level of AGW at between 66 and 90 percent just happened to be issued in 2001… right about the time those lawsuits sky rocketed?

July 20th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Scrapiron
 6Reply to this comment  

Stop the lawsuits. Make the person filing the suit and the lawyer pay through the nose everytime they lose (total cost to company including lost sales and legal expensives, with punative damages 5 times the award) and they lose enough to break most of them from sucking eggs. A little undercover work by the public on all lawyers involved would break up a lot of families but they deserve it. 99% of lawyers are involved in something illegal (hookers, drugs, lovers) , just look around and out them. Most of their employee’s are paying for gas, on a small salary, from a crooked rich lawyer so they will help you. Independant lawyers and large firms can go down the tube with one small discovery. Discover it and reveal it.

July 20th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Leah
 7Reply to this comment  

It’s not that easy, Scrapiron. It’s not always a guarantee that those who bring the lawsuits (in this case, the environazis) would lose. Most cases don’t even go to court - they force a settlement. Even if it does go to court, you never know what kind of a judge may be assigned to overlook the case. Even though they learn in law school to be objective and to not base a decision on personal views or emotions, some judges violate what they’ve been taught.

True, there are lawyers as dirty as politicians, but not 99% of them. Their employers (for those who work in firms) usually offer to pay for transportation, such as a bus, but I haven’t heard of any that pay its employees for gas (though that might be my own lack of knowledge on that).

The only solution is to keep these lawsuits out of court. Even if those bringing lawsuits agreed to a settlement, that would only benefit them financially. What’s needed is a strong tort reform to keep such cases out of court. These environmental agencies, as I’d imagine, would use every single dirty trick in the book to bring forth a lawsuit that sticks, just so that they could win. Bringing down the attorneys and their firms is not the solution.

July 21st, 2008 at 1:01 am
BarbaraS
 8Reply to this comment  

Call me simple. Call me naive. But how can congress prevent drilling for oil in international waters? Even though drilling is proposed offshore, we’re talking about 50 miles out. Way beyond our shores. Does the fist of congress extend all that distance? If so, why are they allowing China to drill off our shores between Key West and Cuba? I’ll tell you why. They can’t stop them. They can only stop US companies and I would like to know why. The enviromentalist say drillling would spoil the beauty of the beaches but what good is the beauty of the beaches if no one can afford to drive there to see them. And China is not going to be to careful or environmentally concious.

All this is just a way to control us and I resent it bitterly. Who are these people to tell us how to live our lives.? Most of them are crooks and have been indicted for one thing or another. A good many of them are involved in sexual schemes and bribery. These people go to congress without much and come out millionaires. The only answer to that is chicanery.

The dems are obviously being bribed. By the environmentalists? By the Saudis? Or by the whole of OPEC. Or by all of them. This is the only explanation except one other. They want to control us. Oil runs the economy and when they have control of oil (which at present they sort of do) they can tax us and put restictions on our lives. We are, to them, the little people. They forget who puts them in power and if the people of this country had any balls they would toss these guys out on their ears. It is too bad the run of the mill democrats can’t see what is happening. They actually believe these guys and follow them like sheep without a thought or a care.

I do hope these prices wake some people up to the problem. I, myself, do not have much of a problem with gas. I am retired and only fill up my Hundai Accent once a month or once every six weeks but I feel for the people who have to travel 1/2 hour or an hour to work every day. This must be killing them. The most important reason for lower gas prices is getting to work. And there is no public transportation for those distances. That would be from one city to another. What are they supposed to do? Quit their jobs and try to get one locally. If that were possible they would have gotten one locally before the rise in gas prices. Like all the dems schemes the end results are disastrious. They cannot think ahead. That is the big problem with their feel good schemes.

Maybe these prices will cause changes to be made in congress. Surely even the dem public is angry at their representtives’ actions.

We do need tort reform. It would put some of these law firms out of business and stop the environmentalists from racking up big settlements to fuel their ongoing war with the rest of the country. The Endangered Species Act was an egregious legislative act. It sounded so innocuous in the beginning that Nixon didn’t see the danger involved. We should all take a lesson from that. Never take anything the dems propose at face value. There is always a hidden agenda. And that hidden agenda usually involves taking more of our liberties away from us. The dems are slowly eroding our freedom and brainwashing our children leading us to socialsm. The dems declaring that the Patriot Act is taking alway our liberties is laughable. The dem congress is working away like little beavers to take more and more away from us. And they do it with straight faces too.

July 21st, 2008 at 3:50 am
Philly_NJ
 9Reply to this comment  

If oil prices keep rising the #1 endangered species this winter will be the Human Beings who can’t afford to heat their homes, can’t afford gas for their SUVs to plough through the snow to get out of their front gates and off to work and obvioulsy if a person can’t get to work there will be less money for food, the cost of which is rising out of control because of high oil prices and Ethanol production.

The Democrats have a term for the above “Unforseen Circumstances”….taint unforseen by Mr. & Mrs average American…. but what would we know ?…Drill here drill now seems logical to this SUV driving, Redneck, Pennsylvanian.
.

July 21st, 2008 at 4:49 am
Scott
 10Reply to this comment  

I expect when the price of gas goes to $6 or $7gal you’ll see a lot more people trying things like this homemade hydrogen generator to run your car on instead of straight gasoline.

July 21st, 2008 at 5:15 am
yonason
 11Reply to this comment  

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. - Abraham Lincoln”

Speaking of dirty little secrets.

Back in the ’60’s I saw a Lefty cartoon with in iterresting punchline, one the Dems have mastered but no one else seems to be aware of, and that is “… you don’t HAVE to fool all the people all the time.”

I was so startled to realize the significance that I never forgot it, but it wasn’t until relatively recently that I began to see how they put it into practice. All you have to do is fool just enough of them to tip the scales in your favor. If you have the right marketers/propagandists to get a few of them to believe your lies, …and then if you can manage to get the dead (etc.,) vote, …and failing that, if you are close enough for a recount to obliterate an opponent’s narrow lead by man-handling his chads but not your own, …then you are in office and the rubes can’t do a thing about it.

If it weren’t for their dirty little tricks, the Demonrat party would be an historical artifact.

July 21st, 2008 at 7:21 am
 12Reply to this comment  

Scott: I kept waiting for that little hydrogen thingee to explode! Was that manufactured by the Hindenburg automobile company?

Yonason: Right you are. All the Dems have to do is fool enough people to sway an election. Not all that difficult considering that their base is so willfully ignorant to begin with.

July 21st, 2008 at 8:45 am
john e morrissey
 13Reply to this comment  

Every time one of the Dem leaders is on TV, they argue that whatever it is that the Pres and the Repubs are proposing 1/ won t deliver any oil for ten years, 2/will only produce 1 million or so bbls of oil per day, a drop in the bucket, and therefore we should invest in windpower, solar power, corn power, thatch grass power etc.
They should immediately be challenged to tell us when windpower, solar etc will reach 1 million bbls per day equivalent and at what cost, and at what damage to the environment e g, the wind cuisinarts in Southern California kill hundreds of golden eagles and other protected speies each year.If these windsources,( Schumer comes to mind) are challenged consistently , it could change the publics love for pie in the sky

July 21st, 2008 at 8:46 am
yonason
 14Reply to this comment  

@Mike’s America

“I kept waiting for that little hydrogen thingee to explode!”

LOL! I did, too! What a disappointment.

(it looks like whatever that contraption is doing, it’s running off the car, and if it is generating H2 while the car is running, and if there’s a leak, it’s just a matter of time before . . . BOOM! for real.)
_______________________________________

@John e morrissey
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5108666.stm

July 21st, 2008 at 9:11 am
suek
 15Reply to this comment  

>>There is always a hidden agenda. And that hidden agenda usually involves taking more of our liberties away from us.>>

Agreed. And the hidden agenda here is that if it gets bad enough, there will be a tremendous outcry from the population. Then under great stress, the Dems - if they have the politicial power - will reluctantly take over the oil companies in order to help the “little” people. Causing anarchy is likely to result in the demand for a strong governmental reaction, which will result in the Statist Government they want. That’s their goal….the State as the sole arbiter of right and wrong, who gets how much of what (and you can bet that they’ll get the bestest!) and in control of everything and everyone.

It’s scarey…way scarey.

July 21st, 2008 at 9:21 am
DW 5000
 16Reply to this comment  

Then under great stress, the Dems - if they have the politicial power - will reluctantly take over the oil companies in order to help the “little” people. Causing anarchy is likely to result in the demand for a strong governmental reaction, which will result in the Statist Government they want.

Do you perhaps have your tinfoil hat screwed down too tightly, suek?

July 21st, 2008 at 9:55 am
 17Reply to this comment  

California’s most influential black lawmaker, Democrat Representative Maxine Waters, made the threat during recent congressional hearings with oil company executives. She said the federal government would take over their industry if they failed to do something to stop the escalating price of gasoline.

Waters told the president of a major oil company to “guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be all about socializing — uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.”

Is this what you’re thinking of, Suek? I guess that tinfoil hat was handed to you, courtesy of Maxine herself.

July 21st, 2008 at 10:41 am
yonason
 18Reply to this comment  

DEMOCRATS AND TIN-FOIL HATS

OK, same story, different link. Note that Waters let herself slip, and said it’s all about “…socializing, uh, uh,…” We know what they want. WHY DON’T THE IDIOTS WHO VOTE FOR THEM?! (or maybe they do, and that’s what THEY want?)

CAT NOW OUT OF BAG

DEMOCRAT = SOCIALIST

(Yeah, I know MataHarley just said it, but it’s just so astounding that you can show them the truth and have it not register. Repeating it is somehow a response to that, but apparently not an effective enough one.)

July 21st, 2008 at 10:59 am
John Ryan
 19Reply to this comment  

The ban on offshore drilling was signed by a Republican president. ALL 26 deep water oil rigs are currently on long term lease, the next new one is due for completion in 3 years it is going to Brazil. They cost over a billion dollars and are not an off the shelf item Exactly how would you like to go about START DRILLING NOW with a Dewalt or with a Black and Decker. As far as land based oil rigs are concerned we have never had as high a percentage of drills working right now as we do now. OK Barbara you are simple. Barbara in general the USA claims waters out to 200 miles as being in there economic control this includes fishing and mining/oil drilling. But of course other countries do also so often the boundary is the midpoint as in the case with Cuba As far as the Chinese drilling off Key west please post a link. Here is a rebuttal http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40776.html http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/12/mel-martinez-v-cheney/
Oh and the person doing the rebuttal is the Mel Martinez Senator R Fla former Chairman of the republican National Committee So sorry no Chinese drilling there

July 21st, 2008 at 11:42 am
 20Reply to this comment  

Pretty much all of the homemade or magic machines that are supgpposed to give your car better mpg do not work. They have negible effect on mpgs. They tried many of them on Myth Busters and none of them worked.

Many of the oil reserves already have wells on them also, and it would take only a few years for them to get online. So the myth of not having an affect on oil prices til 2030 or whatever the new date the Dems put out there is total BS. And if they start drilling now, gas prices will go down now, because the future trading price will drop, because there will be more supply in the future.

July 21st, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Rob
 21Reply to this comment  

Someone has to think ahead past the next election. It seems that it is just not possible for Democrats.

I am getting the impression that at $150 per barrel, all kinds of new energy sources become economic, this easily includes drilling new wells in the US and many other potential alternative energy sources. I say try em all, make sure they are not blocked by the environmentalists and get out of the way.

Democrats want only their politically correct solutions. We can sit in the dark and freeze until they get their way.

July 21st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
yonason
 22Reply to this comment  

“Someone has to think ahead past the next election. It seems that it is just not possible for Democrats.” — Rob

While the Dems are far worse, the Reps aren’t such geniuses either. Of course, it doesn’t help that we are all kept in the dark by the MSM which is too busy chasing each others tails to bother reporting any actual news. If you want news, you’ll have to supplement your American sources with foreign, constantly checking reliability by comparing what they are all saying and never letting go of a vigilant skepticism.

John Ryan asserts that the Chinese are not doing any drilling off of Cuba. Let’s check that…

Stories from 2 years ago about China exploring for oil off Cuba
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2006/07/29/stories/2006072908761400.htm
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/05/08/Worldandnation/Cuba_seeks_oil_near_K.shtml
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/thanks-to-democratic-no-zones-us-is-in.html

They seem to have been active then. What about now?

Looking for info on current status…

…the difficulty of finding anything other than a few stories that all sound the same (meaning they are probably from the same source) suggests that John Ryan may actually be (are you sitting down?) correct this once! Well, accidents do happen.

Now my appetite is whetted, I wonder what else is out there on this…

…still, not much, so I guess the Chinese really aren’t drilling off our shores, ….YET.

However, though the Chinese aren’t drilling, others ARE.
“Sherritt International Corp., the company producing oil and gas off Cuba’s coast, said fourth quarter profit increased 6.2 percent as oil prices rose. “
http://havanajournal.com/business/entry/cuban-oil-drilling-company-sherritt-increases-fourth-quarter-profits/

Nevertheless, and this is why the MSM is utterly useless, there is a lot of activity in the Gulf of Mexico.
Here’s some more info you won’t see in any of the news outlets I’m aware of…
http://www.chinamining.org/News/2008-05-27/1211874463d14174.html

Where do the Chinese come in, if at all?

“Reuters — Chinese oil drilling equipment has begun arriving in Cuba as state-run Cubapetroleo (Cupet) and its foreign partners prepare to significantly increase drilling along the northwest coast, industry sources said this week
http://havanajournal.com/business/entry/cuba_oil_production_to_increase_with_more_chinese_equipment_arriving/
“China also has an exploration agreement with Cuba, and Chinese oil giant Sinopec has been leasing rigs to Sherritt and others.”
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/03/19/8402339/index.htm

So, there is a connection. But, even though the Chinese are NOT yet drilling there, DRILLING IS BEING DONE, AND CHINA IS FACILITATING IT BY SUPPLYING THE EQUIPMENT.

Finally, in and interresting twist, it seems that American oil cos., are exploring for oil near China! In fact, the Chinese aren’t any to happy about it, either…
http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=6814746&subject=general&action=article

I remember when stufll like that might actually get reported on the evening news, but that was a long long time ago.

July 21st, 2008 at 7:56 pm
 23Reply to this comment  

” Chinese are NOT yet drilling there”

emphasis on yet.

I wonder how our envirozealot friends feel about having Chinese drilling, or even Cubans drilling with Chinese equipement and presumably methods?

The Chinese have a terrible record on environmental protection and something tells me they aren’t going to go to the Florida Keys and clean up the mess should one of their drilling rigs have a spill.

It’s also possible that the Chinese/Cubans/whoever could do slant drilling that would sap oil deposits under U.S. controlled waters.

Far better for the environment and the American consumer if American companies, adhering to U.S. environmental regulations would extract that oil.

July 21st, 2008 at 8:39 pm
yonason
 24Reply to this comment  

“Far better for the environment and the American consumer if American companies, adhering to U.S. environmental regulations would extract that oil.” — Mike’s America

Indeed!
__________________________________________

SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Gold Oil secures operator status in Cuba — June 22, 2007
http://www.smallcapnews.co.uk/article/Gold_Oil_secures_operator_status_in_Cuba/3064.aspx
…BUT THEN…
Gold Oil Announces the Disposal of its Cuban Oil Exploration Interests — November 02, 2007
http://www.oilvoice.com/n/Gold_Oil_Announces_the_Disposal_of_its_Cuban_Oil_Exploration_Interests/40adb20d.aspx
(that was fast!)

Petrobras [Brazil's state-run oil company], Cupet sign cooperation agreement — 1/16/2008 (“foresees the assessment of offshore blocks in the Cuban sector of the Gulf of Mexico.”)
http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=4&storyid=8189

DEJA VU?
Cupet plans offshore exploration — 6/24/2008
http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=2&storyid=11421

Haven’t they been doing that since at least 2002?

India to sign hydrocarbon pact with Cuba — 1 Jul, 2008
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/Economy/India_to_sign_hydrocarbon_pact_with_Cuba/rssarticleshow/3185698.cms

Ok. I don’t have any more time tonight, but it’s obvious that something is going on, and it involves a lot of players who keep coming and going so fast it looks like at a “Chinese fire drill.” It’s got me interested, but I don’t have the tools to dig much deeper (most of the trade journals where all the real info probably resides require fees for articles, or membership dues).

My guess is that it was just too complicated for the journalists who are pushing the “China drilling” story, so they made up some stuff that they thought would sound good based on whatever keywords they picked up on. It’s not like that hasn’t happened before, …like regularly.

Oh, I almost forgot. Although John Ryan is technically correct, that the ChiComs aren’t drilling, it doesn’t mean that no one is, or the Cuba isn’t hustling it’s fascist butt off trying to get someone to do it. So, he is still wrong. (Had me worried there for bit.)

July 21st, 2008 at 9:15 pm
 25Reply to this comment  

“he [John Ryan] is still wrong”

Was there any doubt?

You might remember this graphic Curt found a while back:

And your catalog of links made me think: I wonder if there are some stats out there showing how drilling is exploding among all these other oil producing nations. I know there are new finds by Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Sweden etc. that are being drilled.

The only link I could find was:

http://www.offshoreguides.com/cptron/contact_drilling_contractors.htm

Where the rigs are:

Eastern Europe - 29
The Far East -26
Gulf of Mexico - 336
Latin America 125
The Mediterranean - 10
The Middle East - 76
The North Sea - 80
West Africa - 59
Australia / Asia - 76
Southern Asia - 28
East Coast Canada - 5

July 21st, 2008 at 10:12 pm
yonason
 26Reply to this comment  

CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER

(couldn’t sleep, but now I’m done, as you’ll see at the end)

More countries drilling for oil northwest of Cuba in Gulf of Mexico — September 12, 2006
http://havanajournal.com/business/entry/more-countries-drilling-for-oil-northwest-of-cuba-in-gulf-of-mexico/
“Expanding its operations in South America, state-run ONGC Videsh Ltd (OVL) has signed production sharing contracts for two offshore oil exploration blocks in the northwest coast of Cuba.”

Caribbean oil producers — (Sept 2007)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Caribbean/OilProduction.html

Cuban off-shore oil drilling put off until 2009 — Apr 16, 2008
http://www.reuters.com/article/OILINT/idUSN1631398320080416

DEJA VU, again? (see above post #24)
Petrobras negotiating for Cuban exploration — 7/2/2008
http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=2&storyid=11588

h o l d t h e p h o n e !!! an accurate report??? (from July 24, 2006)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jul/24/20060724-122242-7824r/
“Cuba is drilling for oil 60 miles [?] off the coast of Florida with help from China [they supply equipment], Canada [Sherritt International***] and Spain [?(Brazilians speak Spanish)?] even as Congress struggles to end years of deadlock over drilling for what could be a treasure trove of offshore oil and gas.”

WAIT!! From what I found out (see my last 2 posts) these guys got it right (or at least close enough for the proverbial cigar) back in ‘06. So why the heck is everyone else getting it wrong in the middle of ‘08??!! That’s disgusting!! Does Cheney REALLY get his news from George Will? Could that report possibly be true? I mean, Halliburton HAS to know more than Will about something so close to it’s heart (pocket book). Is our country really being run by a bunch of sock puppets? …mostly malicious ones on the Left, and many well-meaning on the Right, but fools none the less? It CAN’T be THAT bad!

Could it be that the Lefty media report it incorrectly so that when the Right talk about it, and then truth is later “leaked” out, that they are made to look bad and they loose credibility? Could that be part of the Left’s nasty little game? Don’t the Lefties know that those who tell lies for them now can just as easily lie against them later? Stupid Lefty idiots.

(***See my post #22, in which the reference I gave indicates that Sharritt of Canada may actually be the ones doing the drilling, either instead of or in addition to Cuba, that’s not clear to me yet.)

July 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 am
John Ryan
 27Reply to this comment  

Technically correct ? yeah that is right the Chinese are not drilling there. They sure will try to get in on it along with Norway Spain Brazil Venezula Mexico So I stand by what the Republican Senator from Florida says, The Chinese are NOT drilling there. As far as Chinese equipment being used well of course just as Chinese equipment is being used to unload our containers at US ports or for that matter is being used by me right now typing on this computer. Probably Chinese equipment is also being used in most American kitchens. You know I bet they eat some Chinese food in Cuba also. Most of the new drill ships are being built in China regardless of for what company they are sold to to which ccompany they are then leased to or where they will work. However again at this time there are no Chinese companies drilling in Cuban waters.

July 22nd, 2008 at 7:25 am
 28Reply to this comment  

So I guess “technically” I was right and you were wrong. Mike I do make mistakes but not often and not on this matter.

July 22nd, 2008 at 7:30 am
 29Reply to this comment  

John Ryan: I am sorry to point out to you that I never said the Chinese WERE drilling.

Your comment #19 “rebuts” another comment. Not mine.

So…. you were WRONG to say that I was wrong.

I guess you do make mistakes more frequently than you thought.

No surprise there.

July 22nd, 2008 at 8:25 am
 30Reply to this comment  

Mike my comment was in response to Barbara’s comment that the Chinese were drilling off Cuba. You said that I was wrong I stand by what I said the Chinese are NOT drilling off Cuba.

July 22nd, 2008 at 8:44 am
yonason
 31Reply to this comment  

CHINESE OIL, UH, FIRE DRILL

I’m guessing that the reason for making such a big fuss about the ChiComs is that they are a lot scarier than the Canadians or the Spanish ( or Brazilians, or whomever). But the point(s) is(are) that (a) Cuba is trying to exploit the oil reserves (b) we are not - (c) WE NEED TO.

As I pointed out, the Washington Times GOT THE STORY RIGHT back in 2006. But, since then, somehow the story has gotten distorted in some of the Right and Left-wing press.

And so what if the Chinese aren’t drilling there YET? Does that mean that if they do it tomorrow instead of today we shouldn’t get started now?

Even CNN
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm
and NYSLimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/washington/09drill.html
tell us the ChiComs and others are probably GOING to be drilling there. So, even if some idiot got the timing wrong, and even if Republicans aren’t terribly bright, the fact is that we need to exploit our resources for our benefit, and we need to start NOW. The argument that we shouldn’t based on a technicality, is just plain dishonest and stupid.

I am really upset with those idiot Republicans who carelessly [I don't think they are lying] use unreliable information to support such an important agenda. That only gives those like John Ryan an opening to argue that because they are wrong on a technicality they must be wrong about the whole agenda. They sabotage their own efforts, and ultimately the good of the country, not to mention giving the false impression that the Democrats know what they are doing.

As to Mel Martinez (who happens to be my Senator), he is still FOR offshore drilling…
Senator Martinez called for increasing the development of offshore oil and natural gas resources and energy conservation as part of a long term solution to the nation’s energy crisis.” — (june 18th newsletter)

But he is a “typical” politician, and so he is playing to both sides of his constituents’ fence on this by wanting it to be the decision of the State, not the Feds: which is fine because when Floridians want it, he’ll be on board. He’s not idiotlogically opposed; he is just doing what he thinks his constituents want. I can’t fault him for that.
http://martinez.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsReleases.View&ContentRecord_id=fb035e1e-e6c5-4e5c-bf95-1e8a373ba3b2&CFID=30992996&CFTOKEN=66149868

July 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 am
 32Reply to this comment  

John Ryan: You learned your Obama lessons well. You said I was wrong for statements I did not make.

And of course the Chinese ARE exploring the Gulf. They may have even drilled a few tests here and there. We don’t even know.

The point remains that they most likely WILL be setting up rigs off Key West soon enough while you sit here and play word games.

July 22nd, 2008 at 9:32 am
 33Reply to this comment  

regardless of who drills it it gets sold to the highest bidder except for the few countries that subsidize their own

July 22nd, 2008 at 9:55 am
 34Reply to this comment  

Post #25 Mike

July 22nd, 2008 at 10:02 am
 35Reply to this comment  

Mike I guesss that you coudls also say that we do not even know whether the Chinese are in the process of digging an invasion tunnel from Cuba to Key west. We just don’t know. Mike you have learned your lesson from Bush well always try to leave a lingering fear at the end . We just don’t know.

July 22nd, 2008 at 10:05 am
 36Reply to this comment  

What a nice little distraction you have going for yourself John Ryan. Rather than deal with the substance of an issue you latch onto some tangential point made by another commenter and try and use it to derail the point of the post.

Well I guess it just proves that you have no rebuttal to the substance of the post.

Not that there was any doubt about that.

Lightweight!

July 22nd, 2008 at 10:09 am
yonason
 37Reply to this comment  

Increased taxation will not help
http://www.redplanetcartoons.com/index.php/2008/03/31/rocket-scientists-they-are-not/

Suppressing supplies will not help
http://www.redplanetcartoons.com/index.php/2008/05/29/strangling-supply/

“regardless of who drills it it gets sold to the highest bidder except for the few countries that subsidize their own” — John Ryan

The price of gas will still go down due to that pesky old “supply and demand” rule. But don’t worry, the Demokrats have a solution for that, as well.

p.s. - Hey, Mike’s America, how did you say I could format this to embed it for all to appreciate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjfssrKGsBU&eurl=http://www.redplanetcartoons.com/

July 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
 38Reply to this comment  

Yonason: Just copy the embed code from the You Tube page and paste in this window.

With graphics, add the img src=”" with the file URL in between the quotes and enclosed by “< " and closing "/>” tags

July 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 am
yonason
 39Reply to this comment  

LIKE THIS?

NOPE, GUESS NOT!

[Editor: Like THIS]:

Thanks!

But that’s exactly what I did, yet for some reason it didn’t work. Perhaps the old spam blocker, again? I just tried a jpg image, and it got blocked - check spam filter (it’s funny).

SEE! I add material without doing anything to the embed code, and when I hit “save” somehow it gets erased. It’s got to be a difference between what you are allowed to enter and what I am.

And what is it with the email? When I try to respond to your email I get back “This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed. foppingacesblog@yahoo.com

July 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 am
 40Reply to this comment  

Did you copy the embed code and paste it?

I couldn’t find any code in the html version of your comment.

July 22nd, 2008 at 10:44 am
yonason
 41Reply to this comment  

IMAGE TEST…

July 22nd, 2008 at 10:52 am
yonason
 42Reply to this comment  

Did you copy the embed code and paste it?

Yep

I couldn’t find any code in the html version of your comment.

it gets erased when I hit “send” or on editing when I hit “save.”

I tried before when you told me how, but it didn’t work, so I assumed that as an editor you have privileges that I don’t, however, if you can figure out what I can do to fix that, if it’s possible, that would make for more posting fun for me.

July 22nd, 2008 at 11:06 am
yonason
 43Reply to this comment  

TESTING, 1, 2, 5, … TESTING

With graphics, add the img src=”” with the file URL in between the quotes and enclosed by “” tags

July 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 am
yonason
 44Reply to this comment  

TESTING, 1, 2, 5, … TESTING - 2

With graphics, add the img src=”” with the file URL in between the quotes and enclosed by “” tags

July 22nd, 2008 at 11:11 am
yonason
 45Reply to this comment  

http://edweb.sdsu.edu/wip/examples/gas2/OilPricesFirstBorn.jpg

July 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 am
yonason
 46Reply to this comment  

While we are on the topic…

Whenever I try to post to F.A., using Microsoft Internet Exploder, I get this error msg., …

The website cannot display the page
HTTP 500
Most likely causes:
The website is under maintenance.
The website has a programming error.

What you can try:
Refresh the page.

Go back to the previous page.

More information

This error (HTTP 500 Internal Server Error) means that the website you are visiting had a server problem which prevented the webpage from displaying.

For more information about HTTP errors, see Help.

I used to occasionally be able to post using it, but not any more, at all, ever.

July 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 am
yonason
 47Reply to this comment  

IMG EMBD TST

failed

July 22nd, 2008 at 11:25 am
 48Reply to this comment  

Hey Yon

I get those often as well. I’ve gotten to the point that I do a “Ctrl A - Ctrl C” to copy my post before hitting send as a just in case. When I get that error, I hit the “back” button, do a paste, hit send again and it works.

I notice that if I take a long time when typing (as I am often multitasking work inbetween postings), it’s almost a guarantee to happen.

Try the back up I do by putting your post in your clipboard as a back up. In the meantime, I forwarded your post here directly to Curt, along with my own comments. We’ll see if the FA guru has any ideas what’s going on. For me it started happening in the last week or so.

July 22nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
yonason
 49Reply to this comment  

MataHarley

Oh, I remember. Didn’t we have this conversation a couple of months ago? Yeah, I always (usually) back my stuff up. But I prefer Mozilla to I.E. because it has spell check, which for someone as spelling challenged as I am, it’s essential.

o.k., I’m now on I.E., so let’s see if that little dance will work for me…

July 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
yonason
 50Reply to this comment  

HUH!

It worked the first time?! Well, I’ll be…

Oh, and I also just remembered that when it doesn’t work, going back and pasting the post back in (sometimes it’s actually still there, though usually not) I get the “you already said that” error msg and the only way to proceed is to modify something, and usually that doesn’t work, which is why I’m astounded at this success.

Thanks, btw

July 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
yonason
 51Reply to this comment  

The Left howls and rages about everything and nothing, and when they find a small, and as Mike’s America says, tangential distraction to focus, they latch on with a vengeance. Whenever they do that, it is important to remember that for every little error we make, they are virtually ALWAYS wrong. We feel bad when we are, and try to correct it. They are offended when caught, and try to cover it up. That’s the difference.

Why do they do it? To creat a smoke screen to discredit opponents and distract the public from their own more serious faults.

What can we do? Strive for accuracy, and work to put them on the offensive instead of always being on the defensive ourselves, which always makes a person look guilty, and they know that which is why they are constantly making accusations, most of which are false and/or grossly exaggerated.

One way we can make a difference is to know, and show others, what they really mean when they use their seemingly positive vocabulary of magic words and phrases…

Here’s a little lesson in what some oif those words mean to them. It is obvious that they choose their words carefully, so as not to convey the real meaning encoded in them. After all, if they wanted us to know what they meant, they would say it outright, instead of pretending their intentions were good, when the exact opposite is the case.

Now, I could be politically correct and say they are “truth challenged,” or I could be honest and say “they are a bunch of (expletive almost not deleted) bald faced liars.” Sure, there are times to be tactful and diplomatic, but with them falsely accusing us of lying, it is time to respond as clearly, directly and forcefull as possible.

July 22nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
 52Reply to this comment  

Yonason: We do have to try harder to be accurate. We don’t have a willfully ignorant “news” media to gleefully report our misinformation. Besides, we do care about being correct. That never gets in the way of Dems.

Good find on Speaking Democrat. Here’s the text from the chart:

“Speaking Democrat:” A Primer

Speaking “Local Democrat”

“PROGRESSIVE” = “REGRESSIVE”

“Democrats are progressive.”

Translation: “Democrats are regressive.”

“CHANGE” = “THE 1970s”

“Democrats will bring you change.”

Translation: “Democrats will bring you the 1970s.”

“GOVERNMENT” = “SOCIALISM”

“Democrats support proactive government.”

Translation: “Democrats support proactive socialism.”

“ENHANCE REVENUES” = “RAISE TAXES”

“Democrats will enhance revenues.”

Translation: “Democrats will raise taxes.”

“THE RICH” = “YOU”

“Democrats will only tax the rich.”

Translation: “Democrats will only tax you.”

“INVEST” = “WASTE”

“Democrats will invest your money.”

Translation: “Democrats will waste your money.”

“ENERGY” = “LETHARGY”

“Democrats have an energy policy.”

Translation: “Democrats have a lethargy policy.”

“GREEN COLLAR JOBS” = “UNEMPLOYMENT”

“Democrats will replace your blue collar jobs with green collar jobs.”

Translation: “Democrats will replace your blue collar jobs with unemployment.”

Speaking “Global Democrat”

“DIPLOMACY” = “MAGIC”

“Democrats will protect America from Iranian nukes through tough, principled diplomacy.”

Translation: “Democrats will protect America from Iranian nukes through tough, principled magic.”

“ENGAGE” = “APPEASE”

“Democrats will engage America’ enemies.”

Translation: “Democrats will appease America’s enemies.”

“END” = “LOSE”

“Democrats will end the Iraq War.”

Translation: “Democrats will lose the Iraq War.”

Contextually Construing “Electoral Democrat”
(i.e. Walking the Party Plank)

“As a progressive party, Democrats will bring you change by using government to enhance revenues from the rich to invest in the production of energy and green collar jobs; and by using diplomacy to engage America’s enemies and end the Iraq War.”

Translation: “As a regressive party, Democrats will bring you the 1970s by using socialism to raise taxes from you to waste in the production of lethargy and unemployment; and by using magic to appease America’s enemies and lose the Iraq War.”

July 22nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
yonason
 53Reply to this comment  

NICE!

July 22nd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Arthurstone
 54Reply to this comment  

yonason analyzed:

Here’s a little lesson in what some oif those words mean to them. It is obvious that they choose their words carefully, so as not to convey the real meaning encoded in them. After all, if they wanted us to know what they meant, they would say it outright, instead of pretending their intentions were good, when the exact opposite is the case.

‘Code’ is so interesting. Just finished Rick Perlstein’s ‘Nixonland’ and one of the ways the Republicans ‘encoded’ their message was by use of phrases like ‘Southern Strategy’ and ’states rights’ to disguise their intent of gutting Civil Rights legislation and appeasing Southern segregationists.

Go figure.

The more things change…

July 22nd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
 55Reply to this comment  

I got the Youtube fo that speech, but I can not getto youtube at work. I will post it when I get home. Great speech

July 22nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
yonason
 56Reply to this comment  

Arthurstone (#50), … DELUDED IDIOT, OR LYING WEASLE?

In 1969, despite civil rights reforms like the landmark decision declaring that segregated schools where unconstitutional, the 1964 Civil Rights bill and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, many African Americans lived without the full protection of the law, equal access to public facilities, or equal economic opportunity. Nixon viewed this situation as not only unfair to African Americans, but as a waste of valuable human resources which could help the nation grow.

Among the most pressing civil rights issues was desegregation of public schools. Nixon inherited a nation in which Nixon inherited a nation in which nearly 70% of the black children in the South attended all-black schools. He had supported civil rights both as a senator and as vice president under Eisenhower, but now, mindful of the Southern vote, he petitioned the courts on behalf of school districts seeking to delay busing. Meanwhile, he offered a practical New Federalist alternative — locally controlled desegregation.

Despite the opposition of many men in his administration, Nixon increased the number of female appointments to administration positions. He created a Presidential Task Force on Women’s Rights. He asked the Justice Department to bring sex discrimination suits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. And he ordered the Labor Department to add sex discrimination provisions to the guidelines for its Office of Federal Contract Compliance.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/37_nixon/nixon_domestic.html

While Harry Truman deserves great credit for ending racial segregation in the military and the civil service, his efforts to pass civil-rights legislation also died from Southern Democratic opposition despite strong support from Republicans, who controlled Congress in 1947 and 1948. This makes Dwight Eisenhower’s success in passing civil rights bills in 1957 and 1960 all the more remarkable, since Democrats then controlled both Houses of Congress.

http://www.babalublog.com/archives/008949.html

It was Democrats that filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

There is so MUCH information on the Republican support for Civil Rights, and Democrat opposition to it, that no one has any excuse not to know the truth.

July 22nd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Arthurstone
 57Reply to this comment  

Yonason typed:

There is so MUCH information on the Republican support for Civil Rights, and Democrat opposition to it, that no one has any excuse not to know the truth!

Yet another interesting point to consider is how little in common the Republican party of the 19th century has in common with it’s 20th - 21st century incarnation.

I certainly appreciate your efforts (just kidding) but this is a little more on the mark:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/special.strom.thurmond/stories/bio/index.html

or this:

http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2007/12/rick-perlstei-1.html

July 22nd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
yonason
 58Reply to this comment  

…how little in common the Republican party of the 19th century has in common with it’s 20th - 21st century incarnation — Arthurstone

And those refs., he gives are excellent illustrations of how that happened! (Racist Dems jumping ship to become rinos in order to support someone because of his seemingly racist opposition to the racist aspects of affirmative action. Once inside they could try to turn that opposition into a vehicle for their own really racist agenda - not the “mark” he means, I’m sure).

Nothing was more problematic than the civil rights issue — particularly the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed most forms of racial discrimination. Goldwater was no racist; early in his career as a Phoenix city council member, he aggressively supported local civil rights ordinances. But as his conservatism deepened, he grew first skeptical and then fearful about the use of government for social engineering. “You cannot pass a law that will make me like you — or you like me,” Goldwater told one rally. “That is something that can only happen in our hearts.” He understood, too, that government-mandated affirmative action was merely the flip side of segregationist racialism: “It reintroduces through the back door the very principle of allocation by race that makes compulsory segregation morally wrong and offensive to freedom.” [his opposition to the social engineering is what the cross-over supporters were attracted to, NOT any racism on his part] And, that, to Barry Goldwater, was the bottom line. “Our aim, as I understand it, is neither to establish a segregated society nor to establish an integrated society,” he said. “It is to preserve a free society.”

Goldwater was privately appalled to discover that his opposition to the Civil Rights Act rallied to his side not only libertarians but racists who detested and feared not state power but black people. He was horrified when Alabama’s racist Gov. George Wallace offered to switch parties and run as his vice president. Goldwater eventually became so paranoid about the influx of racists to his campaign that he worried that a summer riot in Harlem had been secretly instigated by his supporters in hopes of generating a white backlash vote.

And many Blacks also know that Goldwater was no racist.

July 22nd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
 59Reply to this comment  

Here is the video of the Speech of how to translate Democrat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EcQ03qRE1s

July 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
 60Reply to this comment  

Yeah… those Dems sure do have a good record on civil rights:

Yonason: Notice how Artie is trying to distract us again from the subject of the post?

This is the second such attempt today.

I guess they don’t like having their big lie exposed.

As for your question: “Arthurst